I think Andy Ray is wrong, and that I was NOT free of his precious meme. The distinction may be that I fought against it rather than embraced it, but I was still victimized by it. So here's a (perhaps strange) analogy to illustrate this.

Predicting y2k impacts was like guessing the number of beans in a jar. The beans were the bugs, and the jar was the scope, the range of reasonable impacts. At first (1996, maybe) the jar was of indefinite size, maybe huge. And like any early doomer, I assumed it was both huge and FULL.

As time ground on and y2k was investigated, remediated, tested and reported in greater and greater detail, it became clear to me that the jar was getting smaller and smaller. But I still assumed it was FULL.

By late 1999, it was clear to me that the maximum possible size of that jar wasn't any too damn large at all. But since you can't prove a negative, that jar had an irreducible minimum size. I could recognize that it had reached that minimum size, but I continued to assume that it was FULL. That's the ol' meme, which I could never entirely overcome.

As a result, although I realized that the worst that *could* happen wasn't very extensive, I was STILL convinced that the worst that could happen, WOULD happen. For me, the jar was opaque.

For those with real hands-on experience like Anita, Patricia, even Andy Ray, the jar wasn't opaque. They were in a position to see that the jar was not only small, it was damn near empty. And while I wrote that the worst almost never happens, I could never bring myself to entirely believe this. So I got it WRONG WRONG WRONG. My mistake. I'm usually an optimistic, naive and trusting person. I don't consider myself paranoid. I try to think clearly and evaluate all the information I can find on its own merits. I came as far as I could from my original (and significant) fears. But not far enough. My limitations were reached.

So most of my posts were part of my own struggle to brush the wool from my own eyes, to cut through the propaganda. I was only partially successful. So I wasted some money, and changed my life in some ways. I still heat entirely with wood, and I'll continue to do this. My wife *loves* to shoot, and has become an expert marksman. The Great Food Mountain shrinks at a glacial pace, and will never be allowed to vanish entirely. I've learned how very hard it is to overcome any conviction once adopted. I'm indescribably grateful to my wife both for wholeheartedly accepting my (initially extreme) concerns, and for her steadfast support despite the uselessness of some of those expenses.

And I see no reason to sweep the whole experience under the carpet and "move on", pretending I was never fooled. I'm MUCH more interested in doing better next time, whatever next time might be. Yes, it's a lot easier to ignore our mistakes rather than examine them. IMO, it's also stupid.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000

Answers

Yes, I admit it, I was WRONG as well. I thought it would be a "5" but I became "obsessed" with the possibilities of a "9" or "10." I ended up looking like an idiot for choosing to believe the wrong people. I prepared for the end of the world and it did not happen. I was wrong. I missed it. I blew it and wasted 6 months of my live on the target range and in BJ's.

I never agreed, however, with the relentless "doomer" attacks on anyone who tried to reason that it may not be so bad after all. The only person who ever pissed me off totally was Hawk when he called Marislysis a.... well, he called her bad names. And that was long after y2k was over and I have since forgiven him.

Anyone else want to admit you were wrong? By-the-way, I love my garden. One bright spot out of the darkness of y2k was learning gardening skills. I'm glad I never had to learn bicycle repair skills in order to survive the 10-year world-wide deppression.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), June 02, 2000.

Saying I was wrong, is like saying I shouldn't have paid for "life insurance" all these years. Instead, I should have bought beer and cigarettes.

I made preparations "just in case". And to make those preps, I had to visualize some not so positive scenarios.

And if by verbalizing those scenarios, someone got the impression that I was extreme, then so be it.(Not so much on this forum, but anywhere)

I have had many positive experiences happen because of my actions. I gave a lot of food away to a woman who had just adopted her two nieces. I'm going to give more to a church. I learned some really interesting skills, that I wouldn't have otherwise. I feel confident that I have a greater chance to survive a disaster than before, which would go a long way to being helpful to others.( that is, if Decker doesn't start sniping the population, first)

Just kidding Decker, I know you can take it.

So after all is said and done, I'd rather be ready than right, and I'd do it all again, "just in case".

One thing you gotta give Y2K prophylactic and smarmy blue credit for, they are consistent. Nobody rides for free. I'd bet Pro will get out the "greatest hits" next new years.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), June 02, 2000.

My Dear Mr. Flint, and KoFE

I am mystified by your "felt" need to pour ashes over your head and pound your breasts! You have no reason to apoligize to any one! And most certainly to any one ( the pollies) who is capable of turning on their computers, driving their cars, voting (You know! All the things that adults are supposed to do).

I am still, personally, running on my "Original" time schedule for Y2K. And I must say, if any thing it has been a little worse, so far. Than I thought last year.

Now! While the little boys and girls...Kiddies that they are! Begin to both howl at the moon. And start dragging up drift wood to burn me at the stake with. I shall again state what I said last year (about this time frame).

One; The embeded systems will take around 18 months to play out their little surprises on the world.

Two; that Y2K was a "trigger" for all else that follows...

Way back in the Stone age (Nixon era). A Chip ( yep! They had electronics way back then also). Failed at the Cheyenne Mountain complex ( The old headquarters of S.A.C.). And their radar showed that a spread of missle where coming in over the north pole..( In reality, it was a flight of geese). But be that as it may; For all intents and purposes we where at war...The bombers had been released from their "fail safes" and where on their way.. That faulty chip ( which, thank the Lord they found out was malfunctioning); That chip was a 2.50 chip..For 2.50, our world nearly went to all out global Thermonuclear War.

Now...So far we have heard that the survailence satalites where out after the "roll over"..We where blind, For how many hours? Thank the Lord again..Our enemies did not know it..A month or so later, Our Patroit missle batteries all developed "failure to ignition" (they would not fire) troubles. And the PTB very quietly replaced the hundreds of Patroit anti missles and their firing platform. With missles that would fire..AGAIN! Thank the Lord!

Our enemies where unaware of our troubles! Again! That the Lord! And there have been other little malfunctions also. And all it takes is a "little" one. To do the job on us and the world.

Just how many times do you think that the "Dice" will fall in our favor? How about the next time that there is a failure. Or they "think" that we are in the middle of a electronic defense failure?

"Well! Do you feel lucky today?...Do ya?! In Dirty Harry's voice ( of course).

So..No, if I where you. I surely would watch the world events between now and just after the national elections( if we make it to the elections). The Dice may turn up "snake eyes" this next throw..And there WILL be a next throw! There always is.

"As for me...I shall finish the Game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), June 02, 2000.

Shakey, I didn't apoligize. There's no need to. And you could be right about the next 18 months. But I don't think anyone can prepare for that.

Funny how, when we think of bombs going off; that we are witnesses and not vapor.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), June 02, 2000.

What's the big deal with being wrong about y2k? Surely not enough to prostrate ones self to the crowd around here. It's not like they helped or something. The giggly running back and forth between forums hardly endeared them to those of us who might have been better served by their insights.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 02, 2000.

I appreciate the threads that Andy Ray starts, simply because I wasn't on the forum when many of those posts were presented. This is not to be confused with my having a soft-spot in my heart for Andy Ray. My opinion of him went WAY down sometime last year when he offered the disruption code on Debunkers. I understand that some may feel that this information [if known] should be made public, but I know how to make a bomb and I don't post it because more folks lurk on internet fora than we assume, and not all those folks have good intentions. IMO, Andy Ray threw an onus on the Debunker forum with that post, and that onus has never been shaken off.

Regarding apologies, moving on, unkind words, etc., I think it's already been explained that folks with no experience in technical matters at all [like KOS] were simply DUPED. Andy can call it the meme, and that's okay with me, but the end result was that SOME folks got caught up in the hype that Y2k would end their lives as they knew it. If one spends enough time strictly in an environment wherein one philosophy is extended over another, one will surely come out of the experience believing that philosophy. If you're not convinced, go to a Billy Graham "crusade" sometime and feel the impact. Folks who want their children to follow in their belief systems don't want them to venture outside the family/church unit for fear that outside forces will taint them. Independent thinking may actually occur. One doesn't encourage that when they honestly believe that the belief system honored is the only one.

Y2k was indeed an interesting phenomenon. I'm able to dismiss the past words of many BECAUSE they truly, at the time, believed what they believed. Strong belief systems are hard to shake. The strength grew when accompanied by confirmation of the faith. Much like a religious belief system, anyone suggesting that the faith may not be TRUE was harshly scorned.

At the end of it all, I feel that decisions made by individuals should be handled as decisions by individuals always are. If one feels that Y2k encouraged an action/practice that is now desirable, one has won. If one feels that Y2k encouraged a lifestyle that is now undesirable, one has lost.

I've chatted with several "doomers" after Y2k unfolded, and some felt that Y2k left them feeling stupid. Others felt that Y2k provided an impetus to get out of the rat-race that has always bothered them. Who am *I* to suggest that folks apologize, or "grow" beyond their desires?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Alright, already! I'll say it!

I was wro...

uh, trying again. I was WRO...

eh hem, this has always been a problem of mine, so I've been told.

Third time's the charm. I WAS WRON....

crap.

Well, um, it turned out that many of my conclusions were founded on assumtions that went beyond the available data. In statistical terms, this is known as a Type II error. In retrospect, more research was needed.

There, I said it.

Now, who said I couldn't admit it when I was wro... not entirely right?

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 02, 2000.

Flint,

You always straddled the fence, slice it or dice it how you may.

Teddy Roosevelt said, and this applies to you:

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, speech before the Hamilton Club, Chicago [April 10, 1899]

You always worshipped what you call "intellect" more than what is actually right or wrong.

A statement you made on another thread a couple of weeks ago, wherein you called the Bible "fiction" leaves even your vaunted 'intellectual skills' in question. As anyone knows who has pursued the subject even for an hour or two, there is an Everest of evidence against the notion of the Bible being "fiction".

This calls your entire body of so-called 'mental acuity' into question, as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm not an idiot, Bubba -- scored in the top 2% planet-wide in the GMAT in 1988. The test you have to take to get into MBA school.

Just am tired of seeing people cower down in front of your so-called intelligence. Buckwheat can look up big words, y'know.

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 03, 2000.

CL:

I consider your recent post "hitting below the belt." It may be true that you and many other scholars have investigated biblical writings and determined that anyone with half a mind would believe. However, it's also true that scholars with the same IQ have investigated those very same writings and exited with quite a different opinion.

You don't appreciate Flint's "middle-of-the-fence" approach to Y2k. From what I've seen, Flint had confidence in his area of expertise. He felt it inappropriate to address areas of which he had no knowledge. I felt the same way. I saw enough sites remediated in the IT area to conclude that IT wouldn't be a big problem, but I wasn't willing to extrapolate MY experience to even include the areas within IT outside my knowledge. IMO, this extrapolation in itself was an error, and that's one of the reasons that I think Cory led folks astray. HE saw problems. Others saw none. Who screamed the loudest?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

Well (maybe) Anita,

I'm (maybe) sorry that you (mayne) feel (maybe) that way.

I (maybe) felt some some things in that 'recent' post, and (maybe) I still feel them to be (maybe) true.

When you and Flint feel (maybe) sure enough about your (maybe) ideas to make some (maybe) definite statements, then (maybe) we can talk.

Sincerely (maybe),

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 03, 2000.

And Oh Anita,

Pleez 'splain how that post of mine was hitting below the belt.

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 03, 2000.

CL:

Scholars have disagreed on biblical truth for centuries. I felt you were hitting below the belt by dragging Flint's religious beliefs into this discussion, going on to suggest that since he didn't agree with YOU on religion, he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

CL,

It appears Flint injured you with his statement that he looks upon the Bible as fiction. I recognize your reaction, seen it before. Lashing out at a man with such a long track record of playing devil's advocate, of contributing to the mix by asking hard questions in this way is unfortunate IMO.

My supervisor preached to me for nigh on thirty minutes yesterday. Again. I've yet to reveal my thoughts on matters of spirituality to him because I don't want to blow his mind with the fact I'm quite comfortable as an unsaved human being. That I don't buy into revelation, rapture, into God inflicting untold misery on we the unsaved. I don't wish to hurt him & ruin the job environment.

Intelligence is but one part of a whole human being, CL. Test scores mean little except to those who play that game. We all wear blinders.

Take it from one with a thin skin, when someone pierces my inner peace it is time to reevaluate myself, not lash out. Yet often I do the latter before the former.

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 03, 2000.

And I see no reason to sweep the whole experience under the carpet and "move on", pretending I was never fooled. I'm MUCH more interested in doing better next time, whatever next time might be. Yes, it's a lot easier to ignore our mistakes rather than examine them. IMO, it's also stupid.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000

WOW good stuff, survivalist stuff, the real stuff.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 03, 2000.

I never cease to be amazed at how self-important you people continue to be.

And Bingo, you take the cake here, which comes the closest to "hurting me". I had enjoyed our discussions prior to now, on this "New and Improved" forum.

I do not get "hurt" by anything anybody posts on any forum on the whole wide internet. Get it???

We can have discussions, agreements, disagreements, whatever. Any of you can say whatever you will -- it will have about as much effect on me as a mosquito bite on an elephant -- Get it???

And I would advise the rest of you to have the same attitude.

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 03, 2000.

I'll add this for our friend Anita:

Anything anybody posts to the internet at any time is fair game. Get used to it. (Anita didn't just get into this game last night, and should know this already)

Referring factually to something somebody has posted at another time is not "hitting below the belt".

It is quite simply "stating facts".

If you have a problem with that, then I'd have to say, you have a problem with that.

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 03, 2000.

I'm glad to hear you are OK, CL. I become concerned when I see someone such as yourself lashing out. Perhaps in your case anger is a symptom of happiness. Unusual, but possible. The adrenaline rush is quite stimulating.

Take care,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 03, 2000.

Once again, Bingo, your superiority complex rears its ugly head.

Thanks for the left-handed compliment.

(I'm left-handed, BYTW)

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 03, 2000.

Superiority complex - absolutely. See my soul is saved. Therefore my shit smells pretty. Quite logical.

You came across as angry, CL. Post after post. You do have a track record of posting in anger. Anger is a state of temporary insanity. Holding on to this state of mind, feeding it & off of it is not healthy, nor does it contribute to discussion.

When you calm down enough to reflect on my superior words, you will agree. And you will apologize for acting as if you are my equal.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 03, 2000.

Bingo,

Thanks for the dime-store psychoanalysis. I feel so much better and self-actualized for it.

I get "angry" when I see BS touted as being "truth". That's my prerogative. As it is anyone's.

A lot of BS gets touted as truth on this forum; indeed, on any forum that has Y2k as its subject. So in coming to such forums, I'm prone to get angry. BS makes me angry. Sorry. That's life.

As far as "apologizing" for acting as if I'm your equal: Not gonna happen. I'm not your equal. Anyone who would post such an idiotically self-important pompous statement as the one you just did -- nope, we're not equals.

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 04, 2000.

I've been bad, bad, bad. In 1999 I was cocerned there might be something to this y2k thing. I went to Debunkers looking for solace and info and all I found was invective and sneering. In the meantime, time crept on it's irritating way. On little cat feet, it fogged me. I had no source of info except what was on the Net. (a lesson there). I became slightly memetic (oh no, not ThAT).

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 04, 2000.

I've been bad, bad, bad. In 1999 I was concerned that there might be something to this y2k thing. I went to Debunkers looking for solace and info and all I found was invective and sneering. In the meantime, time crept on it's irritating way. On little cat feet, it fogged me. I had no source of info except what was on the Net. (a lesson there). I became slightly memetic (oh no, not ThAT).

I was wrong. I was bad. I was naughty. I am so sorry. I flagellate myself. I wear a hair shirt. How long do I need to this before I am redeemed? Father Andy Ray, please forgive me for I have sinned!

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 04, 2000.

CL:

Let's see where you're going with this. Since you E-mailed me with your response to this thread, I must assume it holds some importance to you.

You purport that my response to your response to Flint's response on another topic from another thread is unworthy. You would now like to have me purport that your response to my response to your response to Flint's response on another topic from another thread is unworthy as well? Where might this end?

It ends with my lack of response to your response to my response to your response to Flint's response on another topic from another thread.. I agree to disagree with you. See how easy that was?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

CL, that I failed to preface my above post with "this is a tongue in cheek response to CL", was a mistake on my part. I thought it might be obvious that I was kidding, playing a blowhard.

I offer opinions, not facts. Facts are most elusive. More often than not those who hold facts up for all to see are simply mistaking their own opinions for said facts. That's what I mean when I say we all operate with blinders on, CL. I allow for this, others such as yourself often times do not.

Enjoy the rest of your day,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 04, 2000.

I'm so very sorry I was ever even born

-- Registered Member (Official@Apology.Committee), June 04, 2000.

Nemesis, Me too.

-- (Sorry@Sorry.Sorry), June 04, 2000.